Warren v Police - [2025] NZHC 2940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2025-485-58

[2025] NZHC 2940

BETWEEN
JASON JOHN WARREN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 September 2025

Appearances:

Z Smart and K Pickover for Appellant R S Bedggood for Respondent

Judgment:

6 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] Mr Warren was sentenced on 25 June 2025 at the Hutt Valley District Court, following the entry of guilty pleas on the following charges:1

(a)nine charges of theft (over $1,000);2

(b)four charges of theft ($500 to $1,000);3

(c)two charges of theft (under $500);4

(d)unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;5

1      Police v Warren [2025] NZDC 13923.
2      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219 and 223(b); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Sections 219 and 223(c); maximum penalty one year’s imprisonment.
4      Sections 219 and 223(d); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.
5      Section 226(1); maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment

WARREN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2940 [6 October 2025]

(e)unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle;6 and

(f)breaching conditions of community work.7

[2] Mr Warren was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment. He now appeals against the sentence out of time on the basis that the sentencing Judge should have allowed higher reductions for Mr Warren’s remorse, willingness to engage in restorative justice and rehabilitation prospects. The Crown opposes the appeal, submitting the Judge did not err and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

[3]For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

The offending

[4] The dishonesty offending took place on several occasions over the period from August 2024 to January 2025. The total value of the property taken across the charges is around $24,000. Most of the thefts occurred at retail stores in Wellington and the Hutt Valley. Mr Warren often wore clothing that concealed his face during the thefts. Mr Warren also caused $2,125 of damage to a stolen vehicle.

[5] For all but one of the theft charges, Mr Warren was serving a sentence of intensive supervision and community detention and was on bail.

[6] Mr Warren failed to comply with the conditions of community work when he failed to report to a probation officer on 27 July 2024. He had completed 98.5 hours of the sentence and had 101.5 hours outstanding. Around the time of sentencing, the pre-sentence report records that Mr Warren had completed further hours with about 60 hours outstanding.

Decision under appeal

[7] The Judge recorded Mr Warren’s explanation for his offending that he was extorted after a vehicle he had borrowed was confiscated. The owner of the vehicle

6 Section 226(2); maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
7 Sentencing Act 2002, s 71(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a fine of
$1,000.

pushed him to commit crimes to repay the debt owed by Mr Warren. The owner also supplied Mr Warren with methamphetamine, which Mr Warren said he needed to use in order to commit the offending. The Judge rejected the explanation, finding that this was offending…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Warren v Police

Details

AGLC: Warren v Police [2025] NZHC 2940
Case: [2025] NZHC 2940
Decision Date: 6 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jason John Warren appeals the sentence of 27 months' imprisonment imposed on him by the Hutt Valley District Court, following his guilty pleas on multiple charges of theft and breaches of bail conditions. The appeal argues that the sentencing Judge should have allowed for higher reductions in the sentence, considering Mr Warren's remorse, willingness to engage in restorative justice, and rehabilitation prospects. The Crown opposes the appeal, arguing that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the Judge did not err in the sentence imposed. The High Court found that the Judge did not err in the sentence imposed and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the Judge was entitled to reject Mr Warren's explanation for his offending due to his extensive criminal history and recidivist nature. The Court found that the Judge would not have accepted Mr Warren's expression of remorse as genuine, and that the remaining factors did not warrant a further reduction in the sentence. The Court held that the sentence was within the range that can properly be justified by accepted sentencing principles and was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders